











V ^^..^'^ ,'iss&% \/ /Jife'-. %.^^ yM£^ V 











t\ ^^..^^ ;i5S&^o %.c/ ;:^lfe\ %.^^ " 




4^9^ 






















V I. » • "* o^ 



-fU^ .^ .*4<dK'. '^^ ..^ /^^^Ao V y?.-^ ,* 







4 o 



0^ 



■^ 









^^ 



.7 



PEACE ¥ITH MEXICO. 

BY ALBERT GALLATIN. 



I. — The Law of Nations. 

It seems certain that Mexico must ultimately submit to such terms of peace as the 
United States shall dictate. An heterogeneous population of seven millions, with 
very limited resources, and no credit ; distracted by internal dissensions, and by the 
ambition of its chiefs, a prey by turns to anarchy and to military usurpers ; occupy- 
ing among the nations of the civilized world, cither physically or mentally, whether 
in political education, social state, or any other respect, but an inferior position ; 
cannot contend successfully with an energetic, intelligent, enlightened and united 
nation of twenty millions, possessed of unlimited resources and credit, and enjoying 
all the benefits of a regular, strong, and free government. All this was anticipated •, 
but the extraordinary successes of the Americans have exceeded the most sanguine 
expectations. All the advanced posts of the enemy. New Mexico, California, the 
line of the lower Rio Norte, and all the sea ports, which it was deemed necessary to 
occupy, have been subdued. And a small force, apparently incompetent to the ob- 
ject, has penetrated near three hundred miles into the interior, and is now in quiet 
possession of the far-famed metropolis of the Mexican dominions. The superior 
skill and talents of our distinguished generals, and the unparalleled bravery of oi>r 
troops, have surmounted all obstacles. By whomsoever commanded on either side ; 
however strong the positions and fortifications of the Mexicans, and with a tremendous 
numerical superiority, there has not been a single engagement, in which they have 
not been completely defeated. The most remarkable and unexpected feature of that 
warfare is, that volunteers, wholly undisciplined in every sense of the word, have vied 
in devotedness and bravery with the regular forces, and have proved themselves, in 
every instance, superior in the open field to the best regular forces of Mexico. These 
forces are now annihilated or dispersed ; and the Mexicans are reduced to a petty 
warfare of guerillas which, however annoying, cannot be productive of any important 
resalts. 

It is true, that these splendid successes have been purchased at a price far exceed- 
ing their value. It is true, that neither the glory of these mihtary deeds, nor the 
ultimate utility of our conquests, can compensate the lamentable loss of the many 
thousand valuable lives sacrificed in the field, of t\iQ stiH greater number who have 
met with an obscure death, or been disabled by disease and fatigue. It is true that 
their relatives, their parents, their wive? and children, find no consolation, for the 
misery inflicted upon them, in the still greater losses experienced by the Mexicans. 
But if, disregarding private calamities and all the evils of a general nature, the neces- 
Bary consequences of this war, we revert solely to the relative position of the two 
countries, the impotence of the I\fexicans and their total inability to continue the 
war, with any appearance of suoce.ss, arc still manifest. 

The question then occurs : What are the terms which the United States have a 
right to impose on Mexico ? All agree that it must be an " honorable peace ;" but 
the true meaning of this word must in the first place be ascertained. 

The notion, that anythins,- can be truly honorable which is contrary to justice, will, 
as an abstract proposition, be repudiated by every citizen of the United States. \\ ill 
any one dara to assert, that a peace can be honorable, which does not conform with 

fuStlCG ^ 

There is no difficulty in discovering the principles by which the relations between 
civilized and Christian nations should be regulated, and the reciprocal duties which 
they owe to each other. These principles, these duties have long since been pro- 
claimed ; ,ind the true law of nations is nothing else than the conformity to the sub- 
lime proc 
betwec 

ehalt love thy neighbor as thyself." " Love y( 

men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise." The sanctity of these com- 
mands is acknowledged, without a single exception, by every denomination of Chris- 
tians, or of men professing to be such. The sceptical philosopher admits and admires 



ed ; ,ind the true law of nations is nothing eise man inc coniormiiy lo me suu- 
srocepts of the Gospel morality, precepts equally applicable to the relations 
on man and man, and to the intercourse between nation and nation. " Thou 
love thv neighbor as thyself." " Love your enemies." " As you would that 



Fimted by EdwSid O. Jenkins, 114 Na»8au Street, N. Y. 



the precept. To this holy rule we should inflexibly adhere when dictating the terms 
of peace. The United States, though they have the power, have no right to impose 
terms inconsistent with justice. It would be a shameful dereliction of principle, on 
the part of those who were averse to the .annexation of Texas, to countenance any 
attempt to claim an acquisition of territory, or other advantage, on account of the 
success of our arms. 

But in judging the acts of our Government, it must be admitted that statesmen 
think a conformity to these usages Which constitute the law of nation, not as it 
should be, but as it is practically, sufficient to justify their conduct. And by that 
inferior standard, those acts and our duties in relation to Mexico will be tested. 

II. — Indemnities to Citizens of the United States. 

The United States had, and continue to have, an indubitable right to demand a full 
indemnity, for any wrongs inflicted on our citizens by the Government of Mexico, in 
violation of treaties or of the acknowledged law of nations. The negotiations for satis- 
fying those just demands had been interrupted by the annexation of Texas. When an 
attempt was subsequently made to renew them, it was therefore just and proper, that both 
subjects should be discussed at the same time : and it is now absolutely necessary that 
those just claims should be fully provided for, in any treaty of peace that may be con- 
cluded, and that the payment should be secured against any possible contingency. I 
take it for granted that no claims have been, or shall be sustained by our Government, 
but such as are founded on treaties or the acknowledged law of nations. 

Whenever a nation becomes involved in war, the manifestoes, and every other public 
act issued for the purpose of justifying its conduct, always embrace every ground of 
complaint which can possibly be alleged. But admitting, that the refusal to satisfy 
the claims for indemnity of our citizens might have been a just cause of war, it is most 
certain, that those claims were not the cause of that in which we are now involved. 

It may be proper, in the first place, to observe, that the refusal of doing justice, in 
cases of this kind, or the long delays in providing for them, have not generally produced 
actual war. Almost always long protracted negotiations have been alone resorted to. 
This has been strikingly the case with the United States. The claims of Great Britain 
for British debts, secured by the treaty of 1783, were not settled and paid till the year 
1803 ; and it was only subsequent to that year, that the claim.s of the United States, 
for depredations covnmitted in 1793, were satisfied. The very plain question of slaves, 
carried away by the British forces in 1815, in open violation of the treaty of 1814, was 
not settled and the indemnity paid tiW the year 1826. The claims against France for 
depredations, committed in the years 1806'to 1813, were not settled and paid for till 
the year 1834. In all those cases, peace was preserved by patience and forbearance. . 
With respect to the Mexican indemnities, the subject had been laid more than once 
before Congress, not without suggestions that strong measures should be resorted to. 
But Congress, in whom alone is vested the power of declaring war, uniformly declined 
doing it. 

A convention was entered into on the 11th April, 1839, between the United States 
and Mexico, by virtue of which a joint commission was appointed for the examination 
and settlement of those claims. The powers of the Commissioners terminated, accord- 
ing to the convention, in February, 1842. The total amount of the American claims, 
presented to the commission, amounted to 6,291,605 dollars. Of these, 2,026,140 
dollars were allowed by the commission ; a further sum of 928,628 dollars was allowed 
by the commissioners of the United Slates, rejected by the Mexican lommissioners, 
and left undecided by the umpire ; and claims amounting to 3,336,837 dollars had not 
been examined. 

A new- convention, dated January 30, 1843, granted to the Mexicans a further del^y 
for the payment of the claims which had been admitted, by virtue of which the mterest 
due to the claimants was m.ade payable on the 30th April, 1843, and the principal of 
the awards, and the interest accruing thereon, was stipulated to be paid in five years, 
in twenty equal instalments every three months. The claimants received the interest 
due on tbe 30th April, 1843, and the three first instalments. The agent of the Uhited 
States having, under peculiar circumstances, given a receipt for the instalments due in 
April and July, 1844, before they had been actually paid by Mexico, the payment has 
been assumed by the United States and discharged to the claimants. 



A third convention was concluded at Mexico on'^the 20th November, 1843, by the 
Plonipoteutiaries of the two Governments, by which provision was made for ascertain- 
ing and payini? the claims on which no final decision had been made. In January, 
1844, this convention was ratified by the Senate of the United States, with two amend-' 
ments, which were referred to the Government of Mexico, but respectino- which no 
answer has ever been made. On the 12th'of April, 1844, a treaty was concluded by 
the President with Texas, for the annexation of that republic to the United States. 
This treaty, though not ratified by the Senate, placed the two countries in a new posi- 
tion, and arrested for a while all negotiations, it was only on the 1st of March, Ib'45, 
that Congress passed a joint resolution for the annexation. 

It appears most clearly, that the United States are justly entitled to a full indem- 
nity for the injuries done to their citizens ; that, before the Annexation of Texas, 
there was every prospect of securing that indemnity; and that those inju-'ics, even if 
they had been a just cause for war, were in no shape whatever the cause of that in 
which we are now involved. 

Are the United States justly entitled to indemnity for any other cause ? This 
question cannot be otherwise solved, than by an iar[ui)-y into the /acts, and ascejtain- 
ing by whom, and how, the wait was provoked. 

III. — Annexation of TexaF. 

At the time when the annexation of Texas took placp, Texas had been recognized 
as an independent power, both by the United States and by several of the principal 
European powers ; but its independence had not been recognized by Mexico, and the 
two contending parties continued to be at war. Under those circumstances, there is 
not the slightest doubt that the annexation of Texas was tantamount to a declaration 
of war against Mexico. Nothing can be more clear and undeniable than that, when- 
ever two nations are at war, if a third Power p.'iall enter into a treaty of alliance, 
offensive and defensive, with either of the be.'iigcrents,; and if such treaty is not con- 
tingent, and is to take effect immediately and pending the war, such treaty is a decla- 
ration of war against the other party. The causes of the war between the two bellicr- 
crents do not alter the fact. Supposing that the third party, the interfering Power, 
should have concluded the trcsV o^ alliance with that belligerent who was clearly en- 
gaged in a most just war, the A'eaty would not be the less a declaration of war against 
the other belligerent. 

If Great Britain and Fr-*nce were at war, and the United States were to enter into 
6uch a treaty with either, can there be the slightest doubt that this would be actual 
war against the other party r" that it would be considered as such, and that it must 
have been intended /or tliat purpose .> If at this moment, either France or England 
were to make such a treaty with Mexico, thereby binding themselves to defend and 
protect it with ali tlieir forces against any other Power whatever, would not the United 
States instantaneously view such a treaty as a declaration of war, and act accordingly ? 
But the annexation of Texas, by the United States, was even more than a treaty oF 
offensive and defensive alliance. It embraced all the conditions and all the duties 
growing out jf the alliance ; and it imposed them forever. From the moment when 
Texas bad been annexed, the United States became bound to protect and defend her, 
so fy-r as her legitimate boundaries extended, against any invasion, or attack, on the 
part of ^Mexico : and they havo uniformly acted accordingly. 

There is no impartial publicist that will not acknowledge the indubitable truth of 
these positions : it appears to me impossible that they should be seriously denied by a 
dngle person. 

it appears that Mexico was at that time disposed to acknowledge the independence 

rf Texas, but on the express condition, that it should not be annexed to the United 

states ; and it has been suggested, that this was done under the influence of some Eu- 

opean Powers. Whether this last assertion be true or not, is not known to me. Butj 

vllhe condition was remarkable and offensive. 

;(i Undar an apprehension that Texas might be tempted to accept the terms proposed, 

in be Government of the United States may have deemed it expedient to defeat the 

ijillan, by offering that annexation, which had been formerly declined, when the Gov- 

jrnment of Texas was anxious for it. 

It may be admitted that, whether independent or annexed to the I'n't? I States, 



4 

Texas must he a slave-holding State, so K)iig as slavery shall contintie to exist in 
North America. Its whole population, with hardly any exception, consisted of citi- 
zens of the United States. Both for that reason, and on account of its geographical 
position, it was mueh more natural, that Texas should be a member of the United 
States, than of the Mexican Confederation. Viewed purely as a question of expe- 
diency, the annexation might be considered as beneficial to both parties. But expe- 
diency is not justice. Mexico and Texas had a perfect right to adjust their differences 
and make peace, on any terms they might deem proper. The anxiety to prevent 
this result indicated a previous disposition ultimately to occupy Texas : and when ths 
annexation was accomplished; when it was seen, that the United States had appro- 
priated to themselves all the advantages resulting from the American settlements in 
Texas, and from their subsequent insurrection ; the purity of the motives of our Gov- 
ernment became open to suspicion. 

Setting asidii the justice of the proceeding, it is true that it had been anticipated, 
by those who tu^k an active part in the annexation, that the weakness of Mexico 
would compel it to yield, or at least induce her not to resort to actual war. This was 
verified by the fact : and had Govertiment remained in the hands with whom the plan 
originated, war might -probably have been avoided. But when no longer in power, 
they could neither regulate the impulse they had given, nor control the reckless spirits 
they had evoked. 

Mexico, sensible of her weai^ness, declined war, and only resorted to a suspension of 
diplomatic intercourse •, but a profound sense of the injury inflicted by the United States 
has ever since rankled in theiv minds. It will be found, through all their diplomatic cor- 
respondence, through all their manifestoes, that the Mexicans, even to this day, per- 
petually recur to this nevcr-forgoUen offensive measure. And, on the other hand, the 
subsequent administration of our Government seems to have altogether forgotton this 
primary act of injustice, and, in their xiegotktions, to have acted as if this was only an 
accomplished fact, and had been a matter of course. 

IV. — Negotiations and War. 

In September, 1845, the President of the Unitea States directed their consul at 
Mexico to ascertain from the Mexican Government, \rhether it would receive an En- 
voy from the United States, intrusted with full power \o adjust all the questions in 
dispute between the two Governments. 

The answer of Mr. De laPenayPena, Minister of the Fo.eign Relations of Mexico, 
was, " That although the Mexican nation was deeply injured by the United States, 
through the acts committed by them in the department of Texa;i, which belongs to his 
nation, his Government was disposed to receive the Commissioner ^i x^q United States 
who might come to the capital, with full powers from his GoTernrnent to settle the 
present dispute in a peaceful, reasonable and honorable manner ," thus giving a new 
proof that, even in the midst of its injuries and of its firm decision to exact adequate 
reparation for them, the Government of Mexico does not reply with contumely to the 
measures of reason and peace to which it was invited by its adversary. 

The Mexican Minister at the same time intimated, that the previous leeall of the 
whole naval force of the United States, then lying in sight of the port of Vera Cruz 
was indispensable ; and this was accordingly done by our Government. 

But it is essential to observe that, whilst Mr. Black had, according to his insttuc- 
tions, inquired, whether the Mexican Government would receive an Envoi/ from the 
United States, with full power to adjust all the questions in dispute between the two 
Governments, the Mexican Minister had answered, that his Government was dis- 
posed to receive the Comudsdoitcr of the United States, who might come with full 
powers to settle the present dispute in a peaceful, reasonable and honorable manner, i 
Mr. Slidell was, in November following, appointed Envoy Extraordinary and Min-' 
ister Plenipotentiary of the United States of America near the Government of tha 
Mexican Republic ; and he arrived in Mexico on the sixth of December. 

Mr. Herrcra, the President of Mexico, was undoubtedly disposed to settle the dis- 
putes between the two countries. But taking advantage of tho irritation of the mass 
of the people, his political opponents were attempting to overset him for having made, 
as they said, unworthy concessions. The arrival of Mr. Slidell disturbed him ex- 
tremely ; and Mr. Pena y Pena declared to Mr. Black, that his appearance in the 
■ ' ' '' ■ ^' '-^'- ~)roYe destructive to the Government, and thus defeat tha 



5 ♦ 

■whole affair. Under these circumstances General Hcrrcra complained, without any 
foundation, that Mr. Slidell had come sooner than had been understood ; he resorted 
to several frivolous objections against the tenor of his powers; and he intimated that 
the difiiculties respecting Texas must be adjusted before any other subject of discus- 
sion should be taken into consideration. 

But the main question was, whether Mexico should receive Mr. Slidell in the 
character of Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary, to reside in the re- 
public. It was insisted by the Mexican Government, that it had only agreed to re- 
ceive a commissioner, to treat on the questions which had arisen from tlie events in 
Texas; and that until this was done, the suspended diplomatic intercourse could not 
be restored, and a residing minister plenipotentiary be admitted. 

Why our Government should have insisted that the intended negotiation should be 
carried on by a residing Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotcntiar}-, is not 
understood. The questions at issue might have been discussed and settled as easily, 
fully, and satisfactorily, by commissioners appointed for that special purpose, as by 
residing ministers or envoys. It is well known that when diplomatic relations have 
been superseded by war, treaties of peace have been almost universally negotiated by 
commissioners or plenipotentiaries appointed for that special purpose,who arc personally 
amply protected by the law of nations, but who are not received as resident minis- 
ters, till after the peace has restored the ordinary diplomatic intercourse. Thus the 
treaty of peace of 1783, between France and England, was negotiated and concluded 
at Paris, on the part of Great Britain, by a commissioner or plenipotentiary who was 
not admitted as a resident envoy or minister. 

The only distinction which can possibly be made between the two cases is, that 
there was not as yet actual war between Mexico and the United States. But the an- 
nexation of Texas was no ordinary occurrence. It was a most clear act of unprovoked 
aggression ; a deep and most offensive injury; in fact, a declaration of war, if Mexico 
had accepted it as such. In lieu of this, that country had only resorted to a suspen- 
sion of the ordinary diplomatic relations. It would seem as if our Government had 
considered this as an act of unparalleled audacity, which Mexico must be compelled to 
retract, before any negotiations for the arrangement of existing difficulties could take 
place ; as an insult to the Government and to the nation, which must compel it to 
assert its just rights and to avenge its injured honor. 

General Herrera was not mistaken in his anticipations. His government was overset 
in the latter end of the month of December, 184.5, and fell into the hands of those 
who had denounced him for having' listened to overtures for an arrangement of the diffi- 
culties between the two nations. 

When Mexico felt its inability to contend with the United States ; and, instead of 
considering the annexation Texas to be, as it really was, tantamount to a declaration 
of war, only suspended the ordinary diplomatic relations between the two countries, 
its Government, if directed by wise counsels, and not impeded by popular irritation, 
should at once, since it had already agreed to recognize the independence of Texas, 
have entered into a negotiation with the United States. At that time there would 
have been no intrinsic difficulty in making a final arrangement, founded on an uncon- 
ditional recognition of the independence of Texas, within its legitimate boundaries. 
Popular feeling and the ambition of contending military leaders, prevented that 
peaceable termination of those unfortunate dissensions. 

Yet, when Mexico refused to receive Mr. Slidell as an Envoy Extraordinary and 
Minister Plenipotentiary, the United States should have remembered, that we had 
been the aggressors, that we had committed an act acknowledged, as well by the 
practical law of nations, as by common sense and common justice, to be tantamount 
to a declaration of war ; and they should have waited with patience, till the feelings 
excited by our own conduct had subsided. 

General Taylor had been instructed by the War Department, as early as May, 
28, 1845, to cause the forces under his command to be put into a position where they 
might most promptly and efficiently act in defence of Texas, in the event that it 
should become necessary or proper to employ them for that purpose. By subsequent 
instructions, and after the people of Texas had accepted the proposition of annexa- 
tion, he was directed to select and occupy a position adapted to repel invasion, as 
near the boundary line, the Rio Grande, as prudence would dictate ; and that, with 



6 

this view, a part of bis forces at least should be west of the river Nneces. It was 
certainly the duty of the President to protect Texas against invasion, frem the mo- 
ment it had been annexed to the United States ; and as that republic was in actual 
possession of Corpus Christi, which was the position selected by General Taylor, there 
was nothing, in the position he had taken, indicative of any danger of actual hostilities. 
But our Government seems to have considered the refusal, on the par* of Mexico, 
to receive Mr. Slidell as a resident Envoy of the United States, as necessarily leading 
to war. The Secretary of State, in his letter to Mr. Slidell of January 2S, 1846, 
says : — 

" Should the Mexican Government finally refuse to receive yon, the cup of forbearance w^" 
then have been exhausted. Nothing can remain but to take the redress of the injuries to our citi^ 
zens, and the insults to our Government, into our own hands." 

And again : — 

" Should the Mexican Government finally refuse to receive you, then demand passports from the 
proper authority, and return to the United States. It will then become the duty of the President 
to submit the whole case to Congress, and call upon the nation to assert its just rights, and 
avenge its injured honor." 

With the same object in view, the Secretary of War did, by his letter dated Jan- 
uary 13, 1846, instruct General Taylor 

" To advance and occupy, with the troops under his command, positions on or near the east bank 

of the Rio del Norte It is presumed Point Isabel will be considered by you an eligible 

position. This point, or some one near it, and points opposite Matan>oras and Mier, and in the 

vicinity of Laredo, are suggested for your consideration Should you attempt to exercisj 

the right, which the United States have in common with I\Iexico, to the free navigation of this river, 
it is probable that Mexico would interpose resistance. You will not attempt to enforce this rrght 

without further instructions It is not designed, in our present relations with Mexico, Chat 

you should treat her as an enemy ; but, should she assume that character by a declaration of war, 
or any open act of hostility towards us, you will not act merely on the defensive if your relative 
means enable you to do otherwise." 

The administration was therefore of opinion, that this military oceupation of the 
territory in question was not an act of hostility towards Mexico, or treating her as an 
enemy. Now, I do aver, without fear of contradiction, that whenever a territory 
claimed by two powers is, and has been for a length of time, in the possession of one 
of them, if the other should invade and take possession of it by military force, sueh an 
is an open act of hostility, according to the acknowledged and practical law of 
■nations. In this case the law of nations only recognizes a clear and positive fact. 

The sequel is well known. General Taylor, with his troops, left Corpus Christi, 
March 8th to 11th, 1846, and entered the desert which separates that place from the 
vicinity of the del Norte. On the 21st he was encamped three miles south of the 
Arroyo, or Little Colorado, having by the route he took marched 135 miles, and being- 
nearly north of Matamoras about thirty miles distant. He had on the 19th met a party 
of irregular Mexican cavalry, who informed him that they had peremptory orders, if 
he passed the river, to fire upon his troops, and that it would be considered a declara- 
tion of war. The river was however crossed without a single shot having been fired. 
In a proclamation issued on the 12th, General Mejia, who commanded the forces of 
the Department of Tamaulipas, asserts, that the limits of Texas are certain and 
recognized, and never had extended beyond the river Nueces, that the cabinet of tho 
United States coveted the regions on the left bank of the Rio Bravo, and that the 
American army was now advancing to take possession of a large part of Tamaulipas. 
On the 24th March General Taylor reached a point on the route from Matamoras to 
Point Isabel, eighteen miles from the former, and ten from the latter place, where a 
deputation sent him a formal Protest of the Prefect of the Northern District of the 
Department of Tamaulipas, declaring, in behalf of the citizens of the district, that they 
never will consent to separate themselves from the Mexican Republic, and to unite 
themselves with the United States. On the 12th of April, the Mexican General 
Ampudia required General Taylor to break up his camp within twenty-four homrs,. 
and to retire to the other bank of the Nueces river, and notified him that, if he persisted^ 
in remaining upon the soil of the Department of Tamaulipas, it would clearly result 
that arms alone must decide the question ; in which case he declared that the 
Mexicans would accept the war to which they had been provoked. On the 24th of 
April, General Arista arrived in Matamoras, and on the same day informed General; 
Taylor, that he considered hostilities commenced, and would prosecute them. Oa 



7 

the same day, a party of sixty-three American dragoons, who had been sent some dis- 
tance up the loft bank of the river, became eni^agcd with a very large force of the 
enemy, and after a short affair, in which about sixteen were killed or wounded, were 
surrounded and compelled to surrender. These facts were laid before Congress by 
the President in his message of the 11th of May. 

V. — The claim of Texas to the Rio del Norte, as its boundary, exatnined. 

From what precedes it appears, that the Government of the United States con- 
sidered the refusal of Mexico to receive a resident Envoy, or minister, as a sufficient 
cause for war ; and the Rio del Norte as the legitimate boundary of Texas. The first 
opinion is now of no importance ; but the question of boundary, which was the imme- 
diate cause of hostilities, has to this day been the greatest impediment to the restora- 
tion of peace. I feel satisfied, that if this was settled, there would be no insuperable 
difficulty in arranging other pretensions. 

The United States claim no other portion of the Mexican dominions, unless it be 
by right of conquest. The tract of country between the Rio Nueces and the del 
Norte, is the only one, which has been claimed by both parties, as respectively be- 
longing either to Texas or to Mexico. As regards every other part of the Mexican 
possessions, the United States never had claimed any portion of it. The iniquity of 
acquiring any portion of it, otherwise than by fair compact freely consented to by 
Mexico, is self-evident. It is, in every respect, most important to examine the 
grounds on which the claim of the United States to the only territory claimed by 
both nations is founded. It is the main question at issue. 

The Republic of Texas did, by an act of December, 1836, declare the Rio del 
Norte to be its boundary. It will not be seriously contended, that a nation has a 
right, by a law of its own, to determine what is or shall be the boundary between it 
and another country. The act was nothing more than the expression of the wishes 
or pretensions of the Government. Its only practical effect was that, emanating from 
its Congress or legislative body, it made it imperative on the Executive not to con- 
clude any peace with Mexico, unless that boundary was agreed to. As regards right, 
the act of Texas is a perfect nullity. We want the arguments and documents by 
which the claim is sustained. 

On a first view the pretension is truly startling. There is no exception : the Rio 
Norte from its source to its mouth is declared to be the rightful boundry of Texas. 
That river has its source within the department, province, or state of New Mexico, 
which it traverses through its whole length from north to south, dividing it into two 
unequal parts. The largest and most populous, including Santa Fe, the capital, lies 
on the left bank of the river, and is therefore embraced within the claim of Texas. 
Now this province of New Mexico was first visited and occupied by the Spaniards 
under Vasqucz Coronado, in the years 1540 to ]542. It was at that time voluntarily 
evacuated, subsequently re-visited, and some settlements made about the year 1583 : 
finally conquered in 1595 by the Spaniards, under the command of Onate. An insurrection 
of the Indians drove away the Spaniards in the year 1680. They re-entered it the ensuing 
year, and after a long resistance rc-conqucred it. This was an internal conflict with 
the Aborigines ; but as related to foreign powers, the sovereignty of the Spaniards 
over the territory was never called in question ; and it was, in express terms, made 
the western boundary of Louisiana in the Royal Charter of the French Government. 

The conquest of the province by Onate, took place five-and-twcnty years prior to the 
landing of thePilgrimsin New England, and twelve years before any permanent settle- 
ment had been made in North America, on the shores of the Atlantic, by cither England, 
France, Holland, Sweden, or any other power, but that in Florida by Spain herself. 

I have in vain sought for any document, emanating from the Republic or State of 
Texas, for the purpose of sustaining its claim cither to New Mexico or to the country 
bordering on the lower portion of the del Norte. The only official papers within my 
reach, in which the claim of Texas is sustained, are the President's messages of May 
11th and Dec. 3rd, 1846 ; and these refer only to the country bordering on the lower 
part of the del Norte. The portion of the message of May 11th, 1846, relating to 
that subject, is as follows : 

" IMcantime Texas, by the final action of onr Congress, had become an integral part of our Union. 
The Congress of Texas, by its act of December 19, 1836, had declared the Rio del Norte to be the 



8 

boundary of that republic. Its jurisdiction had teen extended and exercised beyond the Nueces. 
The country between that river and the del Norte had been represented in the Conorress and in the 
Convention of Texas ; had thus taken part in the act of annexation itself; and is now included 
within one of our congressional districts. Our own Congress had, moreover, with great unanimity, 
by the act approved December 31, 1845, recognized the country beyond the Nueces as a part of our 
territory, by including it within our own revenue system; and a revenue officer, to reside within 
that district, has been appointed, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate. It became, 
therefore, of urgent necessity to provide for the^defence of that portion of our country. Accord- 
ifgly? on the 13th of January last, instructions were issued to the general in command of these 
troops to occupy the left bank of the del Norte 

" The movement of the troops to the del Norte was made by the commanding genera], under 
positive instructions to abstain from all aggressive acts towards Mexico or Mexican citizens, and to 
regard the relations between that Republic and the United States as peaceful, unless she should 
declare war, or commit acts of hostility indicative of a state of war. He was specially directed to 
protect private property, and respect personal rights." 

In his annual message of December 8, 1846, the President states that Texas, as 
ceded to the United States by France in 1803, has been always claimed as extending 
west to the Rio Grande ; that this fact is established by declarations of our Govern- 
ment during Mr. Jefferson's and Mr. Monroe's administrations ; and that the Texas 
which was ceded to Spain by the Florida treaty of 1819, embraced all the country 
now claimed by the State of Texas between the Nueces and the Rio Grande. 

He then repeats the Acts of Texas with reference to their boundaries ; stating that : 

" During a period of more than nine years, which intervened between the adoption of her con- 
stitution and her annexation as one of the States of our Union, Texas asserted and exercised 
many acts of sovereignty and jurisdiction over the territory and inhabitants west of the Nueces ; 
such as organizing and defining limits of counties extending to the Rio Grande ; establishing 
courts of justice, and extending her judicial system over the territory; establishing also a custom- 
liouse, post-offices, a land-ofiice, &c." 

The President designates by the name of Texas, the cession of Louisiana by France 
to the United States ; and be again calls the territory ceded to Spain by the Florida 
treaty of 1819, the Texas. He intimates that the claim of the United States to the 
territory between the Sabine and the Rio Norte, was derived from the boundaries of 
Texas, and that by claiming as far west as tnis river, the United States did recognize 
that it was the boundary of the Texas. I really do not understand what is meant by 
this assertion. 

The United States claimed the Rio Norte as being the legitimate boundary of 
Louisiana., and not of Texas. Neither they nor France had ever been in possession 
of the country beyond the Sabine. Spain had always held possession, and had divided 
the territory into provinces as she pleased. One of these was called Texas, and its 
boundaries had been designated and altered at her will. With these the United States 
had no concern. If their claim could be sustained, it must be by proving that Louisiana 
extended ofright thus far. This hadno connection with the boundaries which Spain might 
have assigned to her province of Texas. These might have extended beyond the Rio 
del Norte, or have been cast of the Rio Nueces. There is not the slightest connection 
between the legitimate boundaries of Louisiana, and those of the Spanish province of 
Texas. The presumed identity is a mere supposition. 

It is not necessary to discuss the soundness of the pretensions to the Rio Norte, 
asserted by Mr. Jefferson and Mr. Monroe, since they were yielded in exchange of 
Florida and some other objects by the treaty of 1819 ; a treaty extremely popular at 
the time, and the execution of which was pressed with great zeal and perseverance. 

Whenever ultimately ceded to Mexico, that republic fixed its boundaries as it 
thought proper. Texas and Cohahuila were declared to form a state ; and the Rio 
Nueces was made the boundary of Texas. When Texas declared itself independent, 
it was the insurrection of only part of a state ; for Cohahuila remained united to Mexico. 
But the Rio Nueces was the boundary between the depaitment of Te.xas and the state 
of Tamaulipas. The whole contested territory lies within the limits of Tamaulipas, 
which never was, under the Mexican Government, connected in any shape with Texas. 

The question now under consideration is only that between the United States and 
Mexico ; and in that view of the subject, it is quite immaterial whether the acts of the 
United States emanated from Congress, or from the Executive. No act of either, 
recognizing the country beyond the Nueces, as a part of the territory of the United 
States, can be alleged against Mexioo, as a proof of their right to the country thus 
claimed. Any such act is only an assertion, a declaration, but not an argument 



9 

sustaining the right. It is, however, proper to observe here, that the port of delivery west 
of the Nueces, erected by the act of Cons^rcss 'To establish a collection district in the state 
of Texas,' was at Corpus Christi, a place which was in the actual possession in that state. 

It must also be premised that, in the joint resolution for the annexation of Texas, 
the question of the boundary between it and Mexico was expressly reserved, as one 
which should be settled by treaty between the United States and Mexico. 

The only arguments in the President's message which sustain the right of Texas to 
territory beyond the Nueces, are contained in those passages, in which it is asserted, 
that the jurisdiction of Texas had been extended and exercised beyond the Nueces; 
that the country between that river and the del Norte had been represented in the 
Congress and Convention of Texas, had taken part in the annexation itself, and was 
now included within one of our congressional districts. 

But it is not stated in the President's message, how far beyond the Nueces the ju- 
risdiction of Texas had been extended, nor what part of the country between that 
river and the del Norte had been represented in the Congress and Convention of 
Texas, and was then included within one of our congressional districts. 

Now the actual jurisdiction beyond the Nueces never extended farther than the 
adjacent settlement of San Patricio, consisting of about twenty families. That small 
district, though beyond the Nueces, was contiguous to, and in the actual possession of 
Texas. On this account it might be rightfully included within the limits, which wo 
were bound to protect against Mexican invasion. 

But what was the country between this small settlement of San Patricio, or between 
Corpus Christi and the Rio del Norte, over which it might be supposed from the mes- 
sage, that the jurisdiction of Texas had been extended, so as to be included within 
one of our congressional districts ? Here, again, Texas had erected that small settle- 
ment into a county called San Patricio, and declared that this county extended to the 
Rio del Norte. This, like all other declaratory acts of the same kind, was only an 
assertion not aflfecting the question of right. The State of Texas might, with equal 
propriety, have declared that their boundary extended to the Sierra Madre or to the 
Pacific. The true question of right to any territory beyond the Mexican limits of 
the Department of Texas depends on the facts : By whom was the territory in ques- 
tion actually inhabited and occupied .' and had the inhabitants united with Texas in 
the insurrection against Mexico .' 

The whole country beyond the settlement of San Patricio and Corpus Christi, till 
within a few miles of the del Norte, is a perfect desert, one hundred and sixty miles 
wide by the route pursued by General Taylor, as stated by himself, and near ono 
hundred and twenty miles in a straight line. 

The only settled part of it is along the left bank of the del Norte, and but a few 
miles in breadth. This belt was settled, inhabited and occupied exclusively by Mex- 
icans. It included the town of Lorcdo ; and Mexico had a custom-house at Brazos, 
north of the mouth of the river. Till occupied by the American arms it had ever been, 
and was at the time when invaded by General Ta;ylor, a part of the Department of 
Tamaulipas, and subject to the jurisdiction of the Prefect of the Northern District 
of that department. 

In the course of the war between Mexico and Texas, incursions had been occasion- 
ally made by each party into the territories of the other. A Mexican officer had, 
once or twice, obtained temporary occupation of San Antonio, within the limits of 
Texas ; and the Tcxans had on one occasion taken Loredo itself, and more than once 
had carried their arms, not only to the left bank of the del Norte, but even beyond 
that river. In both cases the aggressive partieshadbeen repulsed and expelled. The 
last Texan expedition of that kind took place in December, 1S42, and terminated in 
their defeat at Mier. 

That the country, adjacent to the left bank of the river, was exclusively in the pos- 
session of the Mexicans, was well known to our Government. 

When General Taylor marched to the del Norte, he issued an order (No. 30) 
translated into the Spanish, ordering all under his command, to observe with the most 
scrupulous respect the rights of all the inhabitants, who might be found in peaceful 
prosecution of their respective occupations, as well on the left as on the right side of 
the Rio Grande. No interference, ho adds, will be allowed with the civil rights or 
religious privileges of the inhabitants. 



10 

In June, 1845, General Taylor had be^ directed to select and occupy, on or near 
tlie Rio Grande del Norte, such a site as would be best adapted to repel invasion and 
to protect our Western border. But on the 8th of July following, the Secretary of 
War (Mr. Marcy) addressed the following letter to him : 

" This Department is informed that IMexico has some military establishments on the East side of 
the Rio Grande, which are, and for some time have been, in the actual occupancy of her troops- 
In carrying out the instructions heretofore received, you will be careful to avoid any acts of ag- 
gression, unless an actual state of war should exist. The Mexican forces at the posts in their 
possession, and which have been so, will not be disturbed as long as the relations of peace between 
the United States and Mexico continue." 

On the 30th July, 1845, the Secretary again addresses Gen. Taylor as follows : 

" You are expected to occupy, protect and defend the territory of Texas, to the extent that it has 
been occupied by the people of Texas. The Rio Grande is claimed to be the boundary between 
the two countries, and up to this boundary you are to extend your protection, only excepting any 
posts on the Eastern side thereof, which are in the actual occupancy of Mexican forces, or Mexi- 
can selllemenls, over which the Republic of Texas did not exercise jurisdiction at the period of an- 
nexation, or shortly before that event. It is expected, in selecting the establishment for your 
troops, you will approach as near the boundary line, the Rio Grande, as prudence will dictate. 
With this view, the President desires that your position, for a part of your forces at least, should 
be west of the River Nueces." 

The Mexican settlements, thus excepted, are not those over which Texas did not claim 
jurisdiction, but those on the East bank of the Rio Grande, over which Texas did not 
exercise jurisdiction at the period mentioned. The President had no authority to give 
up the boundary claimed by Texas : but it is clear that at that time, when war was 
not contemplated, the Administration was of opinion that, till the question was defi- 
nitely settled, the occupancy by the Mexicans of the territory adjacent the left bank 
of the del Norte ought not to be disturbed. Neither the subsequent refusal by Mex- 
ico to receive a residing Envoy, nor the successes of the American arms, have aflfected 
the question of right. The claim of Texas, whether to New Mexico, or to the low- 
er portion of the Rio Norte, was identically the same, as invalid and groundless in 
one case as in the other. Why a distinction has been made by the Executive has not 
been stated. The fact is that he has established a temporary government for New 
Mexico, as a country conquered, and without any regard to the claim of Texas ; whilst 
on the other hand, he has permitted that State to extend its jurisdiction over the 
country lying on the left bank of the del Norte, which, like New Mexico, had been 
conquered by the arms of the United States. Not a shadow of proof has been ad- 
duced to sustain the pretensions of Texas to that district; and justice imperiously re- 
quires that it should by the treaty of peace bo restored to Mexico. 

It so happens that the boundary, which may be traced in conformity with this prin- 
ciple, is a natural one, and that, as a measure of expediency, none more eligible could 
have been devised. A desert of one hundred and twenty miles separates the most south- 
westerly Texan settlements of Corpus Christi and San Patricio, from those of the Mex- 
icans, on the left bank of the del Norte, than which no boundary could be devised, 
better calculated to prevent collisions hereafter between the two nations. It will be 
sufficient, for that purpose, to draw a nominal line through the desert, leaving all the 
waters that empty into the Rio Norte to Mexico, and all those that empty into the Rio 
Nueces to Texas, together with such other provisions, respecting fortifications and mili- 
tary posts, as may be necessary for the preservation of peace. 

The line of the Rio Norte is one, from which Mexico would be perpetually threat- 
ened, and from which their adjacent towns on the eastern bank may be bombarded. 
Such an intolerable nuisance would perpetuate most hostile feelings. With such a 
narrow river as the Rio del Norte, and with a joint right of navigation, repeated col- 
lisions would be unavoidable. 

Among these, when there was nothing but a fordable river to cross, slaves would 
perpetually escape from Texas ; and where would be the remedy .? Are the United 
States prepared to impose by a treaty on Mexico, where slavery is unknown, the obli- 
gation to surrender fugitive slaves .'' 

Mexico is greatly the weaker power, and requires a boundary which will give her 
as much security as is practicable. It is not required, either for the preservation of 
peace, or for any other legitimate purpose, that the United States should occupy a 
threatening position. It cannot be rationally supposed that Mexico will ever make 
an aggressive war againstthem ; and even in such case, the desert would protect 



11 

them against an invasion. If a war should ever again take place between the two 
countries, the overwhelming superiority of the Navy of the United States will enable 
them to carry on their operations wherever they please. They would, within a month, 
rc-oceupy the left bank of the Kio Norte, and within a short time, effect a landing 
and carry the war to any quarter they pleased. 

Must the war be still prosecuted fer an object of no intrinsic value, to which the 
United States have no legitimate right, which justice requires them to yield, and 
which even expediency does not require .-* 

VI. — Recapitnhtion . 

It is an indisputable fact, that the annexation of Texas, then at war with Mexico, 
was tantamount to a declaration of war, and that the comparative weakness of Mex- 
ico alone prevented its Government from consideriftg it as such. 

Under these circumstances, it was evidently the duty of the United States to use 
every means to soothe and conciliate the Mexicans, and to wait with patience for an 
unconditional recognition of the independence of Texas, till the feelings excited by 
our aggression had subsided. 

It has been shown that after Mexico had resorted, as a substitute for war, to the 
harmless suspension of the ordinary diplomatic intercourse, the attempt to make it re- 
tract that measure, before any negotiations for the restoration of harmony between 
the two countries should be entered into, was neither countenanced by the acknowl- 
edged law of nations, nor necessary for any useful purpose, nor consistent with a 
proper and just ssnse of the relative position in which the aggressive measure of the 
United States had placed the two countries. But that the refusal of Mexico to sub- 
mit to that additional contumely, should have been considered as an insult to the 
United States, betrays the pride of power, rather than a just sense of what is due to 
the true dignity and honor of this nation. 

It has beendemonslrated that the republic of Texas had not a shadow of right to 
the territory adjacent to the left bank of the lower portion of the Rio Norte ; that though 
she claimed, she never hadactually exercised jurisdiction over any portion of it; that the 
Mexicans were the sole inhabitants, and in actual possession of that district ; that 
therefore its forcible occupation by the army of the United States was, according to 
the acknowledged law of nations, as well as in fact, an act of open hostility and war ; 
that the resistance of the Mexicans to that invasion was legitimate ; and that there- 
fore the war was unprovoked by them, and commenced by the United States. 

If any doubt should remain of the correctness of these statements, let them be 
tested by the divine and undeniable precept, " Do unto others as you would be 
done by." 

If at this moment France was to contract a treaty of defensive and offensive alli- 
ance with Mexico, a treaty taking effect immediately, and pending the war between 
the United States and Mexico, and binding herself to defend it with all her forces 
against any and every other Power, would not the United States at once consider such 
a treaty as a declaration of war against them .' 

If, in lieu of declaring war against Great Britain, in the year 1812, the United 
States had only suspended the ordinary diplomatic relations between the two coun- 
tries ; and Great Britain had declared that she would not enter into any negotiation 
for the settlement of all the subjects of difference between the two countries, unless 
the United States should, as a preliminary condition, restore those relations ; would 
not this have been considered as a most insolent demand, and to which the United 
States never would submit .■■ 

If the United States were, and had been for more than a century, in possession of 
a tract of country, exclusively inhabited and governed by them, disturbed only by 
the occasional forays of an enemy ; would they not consider the forcible military in- 
vasion and occupation of such a district by a third Power, as open and unprovoked 
war, commenced against them } And could their resistance to the invasion render 
them liable to the imputation of having themselves commenced the war .•* 

Yet it would seem as if the splendid and almost romantic successes of the Ameri- 
can arms had, for a while, made the people of the United States deaf to any other 
consideration than an enthusia.stic and exclusive love of military glory ; as if, for- 
getting the origin of the war, and with an entire disregard for the dictates of justice, 



12 

they thougtt that those successes gave the nation a right to dismember Mexico, and 
to appropriate to themselves that which did not belong to them. 

But I do not despair, for I have faith in our institutions and in the people ; and I' 
will now ask them whether this was their mission ? and whether they were placed by 
Providence on this continent for the purpose of cultivating false glory, and of sink- 
ing to the level of those vulgar conquerors who have at all times desolated the earth. 

VII. — The Mission of the Ufiited States, 

The people of the United States have been placed by Providence in a position 
never before enjoyed by any other nation. They are possessed of a most extensive 
territory, with a very fertile soil, a variety of climates and productions, and a capacity 
of sustaining a population greater, in proportion to its extent, than any other terri- 
tory of the same size on the face of the globe. 

By a concourse of various circumstances, they found themselves, at the epoch of 
their independence, in the full enjoyment of .religious, civil, and political liberty, en- 
tirely free from any hereditary monopoly of wealth or power. The people at large 
were in full and quiet possession of all those natural rights, for. which the people of 
other countries have for a long time contended, and still do contend. They were, 
and you still are, the supreme sovereigns, acknowledged as such by all. For the 
proper exercise of these uncontrolled powers and privileges, you are responsi.i 
posterity, to the world at large, and to the Almighty Being who has poured on you 
Buch unparalleled blessings. 

Your mission is, to improve the state of the world, to be the " Model Republic," 
to show that men are capable of governing themselves, and that this simple and natu- 
ral form of government is that also which confers most happiness on all, is productive 
of the greatest development of the intellectual faculties, above all, that which is at- 
tended with the highest standard of private and political virtue and morality. 

Your forefathers, the founders of the Republic, imbued with a deep feeling of their 
rights and duties, did not deviate from those principles. The sound sense, the wis- 
dom, the probity, the respect for public faith, with which the internal concerns of the 
nation were managed, made our institutions an object of general admiration. Here, 
for the first time, was the experiment attempted with any prospect of success, and on 
a large scale, of a Representative Democratic Republic. If it failed, the last hope 
of the friends of mankind was lost, or indefinitely postponed ; and the eyes of the 
world were turned towards you. Whenever real, or pretended apprehensions of the 
imminent danger of trusting the people at large with power, were expressed, the an- 
swer ever was, '• Look at America !" 

In their external relations the United States, before this unfortunate war, had, 
whilst sustaining their just rights, ever acted in strict conformity with the dictates of 
justice, and displayed the utmost moderation. They never had voluntarily injured 
any other nation. Every acquisition of territory from Foreign Powers was honestly 
made, the result of Treaties, not imposed, but freely assented to by the other party. 
The preservation of peace was ever a primary object. The recourse to arms was al- 
ways in self-defence. On its expediency there may have been a difference of opinion. 
That, in the only two instances of conflict with civilized nations which occurred during 
a period of sixty-three years, (17S3 to 1846,) the just rights of the United States 
had been invaded by a long continued series of aggressions, is undeniable. In the 
first instance, war was not declared; and there were only partial hostilities between 
France and England. The Congress of the United States, the only legitimate organ 
of the nation for that purpose, did, in 1812, declare war against Great Britain. In- 
dependent of depredations on our commerce, she had, for twenty years, carried on 
an actual war against the United States. I say, actual war, since there is now but 
one opinion on that subject ; a renewal of the impressment of men sailing under the 
protection of our flag would be tantamount to a declaration of war. The partial op- 
position to the war of 1812, did not rest on a denial of the aggressions of England 
and of the justice of our cause, but on the fact that, with the exception of impress- 
ments, similar infractions of our just rights had been committed by France, and on 
the most erroneous belief, that the administration was partial to that country, and in- 
sincere in their apparent efforts to restore peace. 

At present, all these principles would seem to have been abandoned. The most 



13 

just, a purely defensive war — and no other is justifiable — is necessarily attended with a 
train of great an<l unavoidable evils. What shall we say of one, iniquitous in its 
origin, and provoked by ourselves, of a war of aggression, which is now publicly 
avowed to be one of intended conquest ? 

If persisted in, its necessary consequences will be, a permanent increase of our 
military establishment and of executive patronage ; its general tendency, to mako 
man hate man, to awaken his worst passions, to accustom him to the taste of blood. 
It has already demoralized no inconsiderable portion of the nation. 

The general peace, which has been preserved between the great European powers 
during the last thirty years, may not be ascribed to the purest motives. Be these 
what they may, this long and unusual repose has been most beneficial to the cause of 
humanity. Nothing can be more injurious to it, more lamentable, more scandalous, 
than the war between two adjacent republics of North America. 

Your mission was, to be a model for all other governments and for all other less 
favored nations, to adhere to the most elevated principles of political morality, to ap- 
ply all your faculties to the gradual improvement of your own institutions and social 
state, and, b}' your example, to exert a moral influence most beneficial to mankind at 
large. Instead of this, an appeal has been made to your worst passions ; to cupidity, 
to the thirst of unjust aggrandizement by brutal force ; to the love of military famo 
and of false glory ; and it has even been tried to pervert the noblest feelings of your 
nature. The attempt is made to make you abandon the lofty position which your fa- 
thers occupied, to substitute for it the political morality and heathen patriotism of tho 
heroes and statesmen of antiquity. , 

I have said, that it was attempted to pervert even your virtues. Devotedness to 
country, or patriotism, is a most essential virtue, since the national existence of any 
society depends upon it. Unfortunately, our most virtuous dispositions are perverted, 
not only by our vices and selfishness, but also by their own excess. Even the most 
holy of our attributes, the religious feeling, may be perverted from that cause, as was 
but too lamentably exhibited in the persecutions, even unto death, of those who were 
deemed heretics. It is not, therefore, astonishing, that patriotism, carried to excess, 
should also be perverted. In the entire devotedness to their country, the people, 
crverywhere and at all times, have been too apt to forget the duties imposed upon them 
by justice towards other nations. It is against this natural propensity that you should 
be specially on your guard. The blame does not attach to those who, led by their 
patriotic feelings, though erroneous, fiock around the national standard. On the con- 
trary, no men are more worthy of admiration, or better entitled to the thanks of their 
country, than those who, after war has once taken place, actuated only by the purest 
motives, daily and with the utmost self-dcvotedness, brave death and stake their own 
lives in the conflict against the actual enemy. 1 must confess, that I do not extend 
the same charity to those civilians, who coolly and deliberately plunge the country 
into any unjust or unnecessary war. 

We should have but one conso^once; and most happy would it be for mankind, 
were statesmen and politicians only as honest, in their management of the internal or 
external national concerns, as they arc in private life. The irreproachable privato 
character of the President, and of all the members of his administration, is known 
and respected. There is not one of them who would not spurn with indignation tho 
most remote hint that, on similar pretences to those alleged for dismembering Mex- 
ico, he might be capable of an attempt to appropriate to himself his neighbor's farm. 
In the total absence of any argument that can justify the war in which we are now 
involved, resort has been had to a most extraordinary assertion. It is said, that tho 
people of the United States have an hereditary superiority of race over the Mexi- 
cans, which gives them the right to subjugate and keep in bondage the inferior nation. 
This, it is also alleged, will be the means of enlightening the degraded jSIexicans, 
of improving their social state, and of ultimately increasing the happiness of the masses. 
Is it compatible with the principle of Democracy, which rejects every hereditary 
claim of individuals, to admit an hereditary superiority of races.' You very properly 
deny, that the son can, independent of his own merit, ditrive any right or jirivilege 
whatever, from tho merit or any other social superiority of his father. Can you for a 
moment suppose, that a very doubtful descent from men, who lived one thousand years 
ago, has transmitted to you a superiority over your fellow-men.'' But the Anglo- 



14 

Saxons were inferior to tlie Goths, from whom the Spaniards claim to be descended ; 
and they were in no respect superior to the Franks and to the Burgundians. It is not 
to their Anglo-Saxon descent, but to a variety of causes, among which the subsequent 
mixture of Frenchified Normans, Angevins and Gascons must not be forgotten, that 
the English are indebted for their superior institutions. In the progressive improve- 
ment of mankind, much more has been due to religious and political institutions, 
than to races. Whenever the European nations, which, from their language, are pre- 
sumed to belong to the Latin or to the Sclavonian race, shall have conquered institu- 
tions similar to those of England, there will be no trace left of the pretended superi- 
ority of one of those races above the other. At this time, the claim is but a pretext 
for coverinjT and justifying unju.st usurpation and unbounded ambition. 

But admitting, with respect to Mexico, the superiority of race, this confers no su- 
periority of rights. Among ourselves, the most ignorant, the most Inferior, either in 
physical or mental faculties, is recognized as having equal rights, and he has an equal 
vote with any one, however superior to him in all those respects. This is founded on 
the immutable principle that no one man is born with the right of governing another 
man. He may, indeed, acquire a moral influence over others, and no other is legiti- 
mate. The same principle will apply to nations. However superior the Anglo- 
American race may be to that of Mexico, this gives the Americans no right to infringe 
upon the rights of the inferior race. The people of the United States may rightfully, 
and will, if they use the proper means, exercise a most beneficial moral influence over 
the Mexicans, and other less enlightened nations of America. Beyond this they have 
no right to go. 

The allegation that the subjugation of Mexico would be the means of enlightening 
the Mexicans, of improving their social state, and of increasing their happiness, is 
but the shallow attempt to disguise unbounded cupidity and ambition. Truth never 
was or can be propagated by fire and sword, or by any other than purely moral 
means. By these, and by these alone, the Christian religion was propagated, and 
enabled, in less than three hundred years, to conquer idolatry. During the whole of 
that period, Christianity was tainted by no other blood than that of its martyrs. 

The duties of the people of the United States towards other nations are obvious. 
Never losing sight of the divine precept, " Do to others as you would be done by," 
they have only to consult their own conscience. For our benevolent Creator has im- 
planted in the hearts of men the moral sense of right and wrong, and that sympathy 
for other men, the evidences of which are of daily occurrence. 

It seems unnecessary to add anything respecting that false glory which, from habit 
and the general tenor of our early education, we are taught to admire. The task has 
already been repeatedly performed, in a far more able and impressive manner, than 
anything I could say on the subject. It is sufiicient to say that, at this time, neither 
the diirnity nor honor of the nation demand a further sacrifice of invaluable lives, or 
even of money. The very reverse is the case. The true honor and dignity of the 
nation are inseparable from justice. Pride and vanity alone demand the sacrifice. 
Thousxh so dearly purchased, the astonishing successes of the American arms have at 
least put it in the power of the United States to grant any terms of peace, without 
incurring the imputation of being actuated by any but the most elevated motives. It 
would seem that the most proud and vain must be satiated with glory, and that the 
most reckless and bellicose should be suQiciently glutted with human gore. 

A more truly glorious termination of the war, a more splendid spectacle, an example 
more highly useful to mankind at large, cannot well be conceived, than that of the 
victorious forces of the United States voluntarily abandoning all their conquests, 
without requiring anything else than that which was strictly due to our citizens. 

VIII. — Terms of Peace. 

I have said that the unfounded claim of Texas to the territory between the Nueces 
and the Rio Norte, was the greatest impediment to peace. Of this there can be no 
doubt. For if, relinquishing the spirit of military conquest, nothing shall be required 
but the indemnities duo to our citizens, the Lnited States have only to accept the 
terms which have been offered by the Mexican Government. It consents to yield a 
territory five degrees of latitude, or near 350 miles, in breadth, and extending from 
New Mexico to the Pacific. Although the greater part of this is quite worthless, yet 



15 

the portion of California lying between the Sierra Neveda and the Pacific, and in- 
cluding the port of San Francisco, is certainly worth much more than the amount of 
indemnities justly due to our cKtizcns. It is only in order to satisfy those claims, that 
an accession of territory may become necessary. 

It is not^believed that the Executive will favor the wild suggestions of a subjugation, 
or annexation of the whole of Mexico, or of any of its interior provinces. And, if I 
understand the terms offered by Mr. Trist, there was no intention to include within 
the cessions required, the Province of New Mexico.* But the demand of both Old 
and New California, or of a sea-coast of more than thirteen hundred miles in length 
(lat. 23^ to 42°), is extravagant and unnecessary. The Peninsula is altogether 
worthless, and there is nothing worth contending for, south of San Dieo-o, or about 
lat. 32=. 

In saying that, if conquest is not the object of the war, and if the pretended claim 
of Texas to the Rio del Norte shall be abandoned, there cannot be any insuperable 
obstacle to the restoration of peace, it is by no means intended to assert that the 
terms heretofore proposed by cither party are at this time proper. And I apprehend 
that the different views of the subject entertained by those who sincerely desire a 
speedy and just peace, may create some difficulty. There are some important con- 
siderations which may become the subject of subsequent arrangements. For tko 
present, nothing more is strictly required than to adopt the principle o? status ante 
bellum, or, in other words, to evacuate the Mexican territory, and to provide for the 
payment of the indemnities due to our citizens. The scruples of those who object to 
any cession whatever of territory, except on terms unacceptable to the Southern 
States, might be removed by a provision, that would only pledge a territory sufficient 
for the purpose, and leave it in the possession of the United States until the indemni- 
ties had been fully paid. 

Was 1 to listen exclusively to my own feelings and opinions, I would say, that, if 
the propositions which I have attempted to establish are correct; if I ani not mis- 
taken in my sincere conviction, that the war was unprovoked by the Mexicans, and 
has been one of iniquitous aggression on our part ; it necessarily follows that, accord- 
ing to the dictates of justice, the United States are bound to indemnify them, for 
having invaded their territory, bombarded their towns, aud inflicted all the miseries 
of war on a people, who were fighting in defence of their own homes. If all this bo 
true, the United States would give but an inadequate compensation for the injuries 
they have inflicted, by assuming the payment of the indemnities justly duo to their own 
citizens. 

Even if a fair purchase of territory should be convenient to both parties, it would 
be far preferable to postpone it for the present, among other reasons, in order that it 
should not have the appearance of being imposed on IMexico. There are also some 
important considerations, to which it may not be improper to call at this time tho 
public attention. 

Our population may at this time be assumed, as amounting to twenty millions. Al- 
though the ratio of natural increase has already been lessened, from thirty-three to 
about thirty per cent, in ten years, the deficiency has been, and will probably con- 
tinue, for a while, to be compensated by the prodigious increase of immigration from 
foreign countries. An increase of thirty per cent, would add to o^ir population six 
millions, within ten, and near fourteen millions in twenty years. At the rate of only 
twenty-five pcjr cent, it will add five millions in ten, and more than eleven millions in 
twenty years. That the fertile uncultivated land, within the limits of the States ad- 
mitted, or immediately admissible in the Union, could sustain three times that num- 
ber, is indubitable. But the indomitable energy, the locomotive propensities, and all 
the habits of the settlers of new countries are such, that, not even the united efforts 
of both Governments can or will prevent their occupying withiii twenty, if not within 
ten years, every district, as far as the Pacific, und whether within the limits of thu 
United States or of Mexico, which shall not have previously been actually and bo7ia 
fide occupied and settled by others. It may bo said that this is justifiable by Natural 

* Mr. Gallatin was misled, by a confused description in a newspaper of the terms offered by 
Mr. Trist, into the erroneous belrcf, that New Mexico was not included in tlie cessions required 
liom Mexico. 



16 

Law ; that, for tlie same reason which set^ aside the right of discovery, if not followed 
by actual occupation within a reasonable time, the rights of Spain and Mexico have 
been forfeited by their neglect, or inability, during a period of three hundred years, 
to colonize a country, which, during the whole of that period, they held undisputed 
by any other foreign nation. And it may perhaps be observed that, had the Govern- 
ment of the United States waited for the operation of natural and irresistible causes, 
these alone would have given them, without a war, more than they want at this 
moment. 

However plausible all this may appear, it is nevertheless certain, that it will be an 
acquisition of territory for the benefit of the people of the United States, and in vio- 
lation of solemn treaties. Not only collisions must be avoided, and the renewal of 
another illicit annexation be prevented ; but the two countries must coolly consider 
their relative position; and whatever portion of territory, not actually settled by tho 
Mexicans, and of no real utility to them, they may be disposed to cede, must be ac- 
quired by a treaty freely assented to, and for a reasonable compensation. But this is 
not the time for the discussion of a proper final arrangement. We must wait till 
peace shall have been restored, and angry feelings shall have subsided. At present 
the only object is Peace, immediate peace, a just peace, and no acquisition of terri- 
tory, but that which maybe absolutely necessary for effecting thegreat object in view. 
The most simple terms, those which will only provide for the adjustment of the Texan 
boundary and for the payment of the indemnities due to our citizens, and, in every 
other respect, restore things as they stood before the beginning of hostilities, appear 
to me the most eligible. For that purpose I may be permitted to -wish, that the dis- 
cussion of the terms should not be embarrassed by the introduction of any other mat- 
ter. There are ©ther considerations, highly important, and not foreign to the great 
question of an extension of territory, but which may, without any inconvenience or 
commitment, be postponed, and should not be permitted to impede the immediat-e 
termination of this lamentable war. 

I have gone farther than I intended. It is said that a rallying point is wanted by 
the friends of peace. Let them unite, boldly expres>! their opinions, and use their 
utmost endeavors in promoting an immediate termination of the war. For the 
people, no other banner is necessary. But their representatives in Congress 
assembled are alone competent to ascertain, alone vested with the legitimate power 
of deciding, what course should be pursued at this momentous crisis, what are the best 
means for carrying into effect their own views, whatever these may be. We may wak 
with hope and confidence the result of their deliberations. 



I have tried, in this essay, to confine myself to the questions at issue betweeri the 
United States and Mexico. Whether the Executive has, in any respect, exceeded 
his legitimate powers; whether he is, for any of his acts, liable to animadversion, are 
questions which do not concern Mexico. 

There are certainly some doubtful assumptions of power, and some points on which 
explanations are necessary. The most important is the reason, which may have in- 
duced the President, when he considered the war as necessary and almost unavoidable, 
not to communicate to Congress, which was all that time in session, the important 
steps he had taken, till after hostilities, and indeed actual war, had taken place. The 
substitution, for war contributions, of an arbitrary and varying tariff, appears to me to 
be of a doubtful nature; and it is hoped, that the subject will attract the early atten- 
tion of Congress. I am also clearly of opinion, that the provisions of the law respecting 
volunteers, which authorizes them to elect their officers, is a direct violation of the 
constitution of the United States, which recognizes no other land force than the army 
and militia, and which vests in tho President and Senate the exclusive powej- of ap- 
pointing all the officers of the United States, whose appointments are not otherwise 
provided for in the constitution itself. (With respect to precedents, refer to the act 
of July 6th, 1812, chap. 4G1, (cxxxviii.) enacted with due deliberation, and which 
repeals, in that respect, the act on same subject of February 6th, 1812.) 

i W46 



V^ .' 









.0 <►. '« 












<l 











.<^ 






"V^'^^V^ \J'^?^V^ ^V^^^^v^ \J'- 






' "v^^V^ X'^?^-^/'' "v^"^^V' \'' 



